EMAIL CLARIFICATION

[fpresuto]

Fellow Plainedge Residents,

First, allow me to convey my deepest sympathies to the family and friends of Mr. Joe Chaloupka. Please know he (and all of you) are in my prayers.

The purpose of this posting is to finally address the numerous emails and phone calls that I have received in regards to the email situation that had occurred. My wife has also been approached 2 times in a nasty way by residents asking what happened. Below you will find a timeline of STRICTLY the facts. Before I go into the timeline – it is important that everyone knows that this situation was not revealed to me until Mr. Raymond and I initiated numerous investigations.

- In November of 2005 I was appointed to the Plainedge Board of Education and a Plainedge email address was created for me. ([e-mail])
- On Tuesday April 11th, during an executive session, Mrs. Flanagan brought up 3 emails that were addressed only to the [e-mail] email address that she had come in possession of. When asked how she got them, her reply was that they were forwarded to her by Mr. Raymond. When I asked Mr. Raymond if he had sent them to her – he said no.
- That same evening (April 11th) Mr. Raymond sent a few test messages to [e-mail] with the tracking function enabled to try to find out how the emails brought up in executive session got into the possession of another Board member.
- The results of that tracking showed that emails addressed to [e-mail] were also being sent to the personal email address of Mrs. Flanagan.
- After seeing these results, I contacted an outside IT specialist to do some investigating. The IT specialist found that the emails sent to [e-mail] were also being forwarded to the personal email address of Mrs. Flanagan through the Plainedge server.
- Immediately, I (along with Mr. Raymond) contacted Dr. Richman to inform him of what had been uncovered.
- Dr. Richman then did an internal investigation to get to the bottom of the situation.
- Dr. Richman then sent out a timeline with the results of his investigation that stated that the records from the server did show that the server was directing emails, sent to [e-mail] , to the personal email address of Mrs. Flanagan, however, at this time, they were unable to determine who set this up or for how long it was occurring. Also in the timeline, it stated that I may have mistakenly done something to unable this.
- Again, I reached out to an IT professional to see if I was the reason for the situation. After remotely accessing my computer, he verified that I had not done anything to cause this and showed me how it would be done. There are numerous steps that need to be taken to do this, including typing specific email addresses in specific fields that could not have been done mistakenly.
- At the April 27th BOE Business Meeting, I read a prepared statement apologizing to members of the community, Board, and administration for what had transpired and I also stated my dissatisfaction as to what had occurred.
- On April 28th , Dr. Richman requested for me to provide copies of every email that went to the [e-mail] email address from March 28th through April 13th, and any other emails that I felt may help with the investigation. I provided him with 194 total emails. Of the 194 emails,
o 27 of them were sent FROM that email address between March 28th and April 13th
o 113 were sent to that email address (21 of which were ONLY sent to that email address)
o 3 test emails
o 51 emails sent only to [e-mail] from 11/23/05 to 3/24/06
- After taking all of those emails, Dr. Richman did a further investigation that proved that all emails sent to [e-mail] from November,2005 to April 13th ,2006 were being sent to Mrs. Flanagan’s personal email address.
- I was also told that the person responsible for these settings in the server was named Jim and that he no longer was an employee of the district.

I have investigated what my possible course of action could be and was told by Mary Ellen Clark of the NYSED that any email that goes through the Plainedge server is foilable – therefore, I did not have any recourse.

Hopefully this answers everyone’s questions. Going forward, I ask that if any resident has any further questions, comments, or concerns on this or any other matter – please contact me directly. Disrespecting my wife is uncalled for and is out of line.

THANK YOU

Sincerely,
Frank Presuto

[Go Plainedge!]

Fellow Plainedge Residents,

First, allow me to convey my deepest sympathies to the family and friends of Mr. Joe Chaloupka. Please know he (and all of you) are in my prayers.

The purpose of this posting is to finally address the numerous emails and phone calls that I have received in regards to the email situation that had occurred. My wife has also been approached 2 times in a nasty way by residents asking what happened. Below you will find a timeline of STRICTLY the facts. Before I go into the timeline – it is important that everyone knows that this situation was not revealed to me until Mr. Raymond and I initiated numerous investigations.

- In November of 2005 I was appointed to the Plainedge Board of Education and a Plainedge email address was created for me. ([e-mail])
- On Tuesday April 11th, during an executive session, Mrs. Flanagan brought up 3 emails that were addressed only to the [e-mail] email address that she had come in possession of. When asked how she got them, her reply was that they were forwarded to her by Mr. Raymond. When I asked Mr. Raymond if he had sent them to her – he said no.
- That same evening (April 11th) Mr. Raymond sent a few test messages to [e-mail] with the tracking function enabled to try to find out how the emails brought up in executive session got into the possession of another Board member.
- The results of that tracking showed that emails addressed to [e-mail] were also being sent to the personal email address of Mrs. Flanagan.
- After seeing these results, I contacted an outside IT specialist to do some investigating. The IT specialist found that the emails sent to [e-mail] were also being forwarded to the personal email address of Mrs. Flanagan through the Plainedge server.
- Immediately, I (along with Mr. Raymond) contacted Dr. Richman to inform him of what had been uncovered.
- Dr. Richman then did an internal investigation to get to the bottom of the situation.
- Dr. Richman then sent out a timeline with the results of his investigation that stated that the records from the server did show that the server was directing emails, sent to [e-mail] , to the personal email address of Mrs. Flanagan, however, at this time, they were unable to determine who set this up or for how long it was occurring. Also in the timeline, it stated that I may have mistakenly done something to unable this.
- Again, I reached out to an IT professional to see if I was the reason for the situation. After remotely accessing my computer, he verified that I had not done anything to cause this and showed me how it would be done. There are numerous steps that need to be taken to do this, including typing specific email addresses in specific fields that could not have been done mistakenly.
- At the April 27th BOE Business Meeting, I read a prepared statement apologizing to members of the community, Board, and administration for what had transpired and I also stated my dissatisfaction as to what had occurred.
- On April 28th , Dr. Richman requested for me to provide copies of every email that went to the [e-mail] email address from March 28th through April 13th, and any other emails that I felt may help with the investigation. I provided him with 194 total emails. Of the 194 emails,
o 27 of them were sent FROM that email address between March 28th and April 13th
o 113 were sent to that email address (21 of which were ONLY sent to that email address)
o 3 test emails
o 51 emails sent only to [e-mail] from 11/23/05 to 3/24/06
- After taking all of those emails, Dr. Richman did a further investigation that proved that all emails sent to [e-mail] from November,2005 to April 13th ,2006 were being sent to Mrs. Flanagan’s personal email address.
- I was also told that the person responsible for these settings in the server was named Jim and that he no longer was an employee of the district.

I have investigated what my possible course of action could be and was told by Mary Ellen Clark of the NYSED that any email that goes through the Plainedge server is foilable – therefore, I did not have any recourse.

Hopefully this answers everyone’s questions. Going forward, I ask that if any resident has any further questions, comments, or concerns on this or any other matter – please contact me directly. Disrespecting my wife is uncalled for and is out of line.

THANK YOU

Sincerely,
Frank Presuto

Frank:

Thank you for the timeline. It's a shame that someone felt the need to drag your wife into this situation.

I will add though, based on your description, there is one thing missing. What was "Jim's" (as he is reffered to) motive and why was he instructed to do this - if he was instructed to do this?

There are still MANY unanswered questions about this situation that I don't think even you can answer.

I still believe a formal, third party, investigation is warranted. The answers we were given, to this date, quite frankly, sweep the situation under the carpet. The answer of - "Joe was fired, move on to the next topic" is not good enough.

[rraymond]

I too would like to send my deepest condolences to the entire Chaluopka family. The community has lost a good and decent family man.
As far as Mr. Presuto’s timeline having been actively involved in our investigation I can not only support his entire statement with documentation but with real life experience. It is very disturbing to me that this “email gate” has gone as far as to extend into BOE family members personnel lives. Unfortunately rumors of email content rather then how or why they were being received extended into my own family. Frank as a true friend and colleague I would like to thank you for sharing the truth with the community.


Thank You,
Ralph J Raymond
Email: [e-mail]
516-756-9380

[concerned]

I don't mean to seem dense, but I am not getting what Ralph and Frank are saying. Are you agreeing you are not satisfied with the answers you have been given? Or, are you saying the matter should be dropped. Regardless of the content of the e-mail, the entire situation certainly is disturbing.

[justfacts]

Concerned and goplainedge!

Ralph and Frank gave good information and details about the illegal e-mail tapping as the concerned parties.

Frank did do some follow up about the content of the e-mails with Mary Ellen Clark of the State Education Department. But as to her providing a legal or formal opinion, he is wrong in his conclusion that she is correct and there is no eventual harm done anyhow - so "forget about it".

While it is true that the content of Board member private notes and e-mails become public property and are FOIL-able; a FOIL application is the process one must go thru to legally request to see the content of the e-mails! That FOIL process was not used in this case and is not applicable to the true grievance - the tapping of a communication link without the knowledge of the persons involved.

That latter act is a crime under the Penal codes of NY State. Never mind that the content of the e-mail is available after some later process (FOIL) is used. Tapping of telephone and e-mail and computer communication links is a violation of the State Penal Law 250 - PERIOD!

The e-mail incident is not much different from breaking into a school District building after hours to avail one's self of school documents one could have obtained by a FOIL action! Both are CRIMES! That fact that the documents are later FOIL-able does not excuse the crime![/i]

IF other ways are available to get that information contained within a telephone conversation, an e-mail or a computer-to computer exchange - that does not permit nor condone the third party use of tapping of those links.

If certain info can be obtained with a court order - that does not mean it is permissible for a third party to obtain that info without a court order - especially by surreptitious means without the knowledge or the permission of the parties involved in the communication.

Mary Ellen Clark is only stating that the Commissioner of Education will not stick his head out and get involved in a decision about the matter. Basically, that is because he has no legal authority to do so or to correct such an action. The SED is the wrong place to go for corrective action. The District Attorney handles criminal violations.

What is most troubling about the present statements however, is that the sole source of investigation to date has been the very Administration which has motive to have instituted such a tapping action! It's like asking the Bank Robber to check out if the Bank has been robbed!

I believe that most Plainedge residents that know about this e-mail tapping that occurred over a 4 plus month period and involved a total of 194 e-mails want the proper authorities to investigate the complete event and will not settle for the present answer provided by one of the possible benefactors of the tapping - especially an answer that says "Jim did it and he's no longer here!"

Well folks on the Board of Education under whose watch this occurred, we want you to get Jim back and question him in detail and if he is guilty of doing this alone - then let him get the legal punishment due to him! And if, when back, he indicates that others were involved, let them be also punished! And what about the acknowledged recipient of these redirected e-mails?

The Penal Law says it is a misdemeanor to have received so many over such a protracted time without reporting them. What about a misdemeanor conviction for that person? Why do you not follow up on that acknowledged and uncontested violation?

When is the Plainedge Board of Education going to take action on this improper use of the public's e-mail server to conduct illegal e-mail tapping?[/i]

Ed.

[mythreekids]

In working for "Corporate America" we were always told by our VP's that "if you don't want it on the cover of the NY Times- then DON'T write it in an e-mail" - I never write anything in an e-mail that possibly can be forwarded to another party or "rerouted" to another e-mail address or that may contain something that may be deemed "unfprofessional". These things do happen in real life -in Corporate America on a daily basis and it is not considered "wire tapping" Yes- e-mails are foilable. I have personally sent numerous e-mails that don't get to the proper recipient but instead, in someone's elses mailbox. It happens unfortunately- not by deception.. I would hope this would be the case here. I would also hope that individuals would have the decency to leave Mrs. Presuto out of this.. Speak with Frank if you want to know something.

[justfacts]

The e-mail tapping was a crime - not a "misadventure"!

The e-mail wire-tapping incident is not about the content of the e-mails themselves - it is about an act of breaking into the School District's e-mail server and surreptitiously routing correspondence between two individuals to a third party without notifying the two that this is being done. This purposeful alteration of the basic communication link is defined in the Penal Code as a felony act.

We are not concerned in any way with the content of any particular message, or the later proper or improper disclosure of its information. Nor are we concerned with the occasional mis-direction of information due to systematic defects in the communication links and routes external to the server.

We are concerned with the fact that there was a deliberate break-in and alteration made to the District's e-mail server to commit an illegal act ! ! !

This break-in would be immediately reported to the proper authorities (police) if it was made to the physical buildings themselves. In this case the illegal break-in was made to District property contained within the buildings. Not much different from breaking into a SAFE or protected File Cabinets within the buildings!

As such, it to should be reported to, and investigated by, the proper authorities skilled in the procedures and tools needed to solve this type of crime.

What is troubling, is the responsible authority in the District charged with protection of the Public's property - the Board of Education, has not reported this break-in to the proper authorities so that a proper investigation into this violation of Penal Code 250 can begin.

The information presented to date just confirms the such a violation did take place! It is now up to the School District Board to press charges and call for a full criminal investigation into the violation by the proper legal authorities. Authorities who have no vested interest in the outcome of this investigation - other than what was legal and what was illegal.[/i]

The matter is not one that can be lightly discharged or swept under the rug. The Board must take an action in this matter in the protection of the Public's property and rights.

Who broke into the District's e-mail server and altered it? Who directed such action? Who benefited by such action? What was their motive? Why was it done? All these questions are but a few of those that the residents of this District are demanding answers to.

Ed.

[plainedgewatcher]

Dear Mr. Presuto and Mr. Raymond. Thank you for sharing this information with the community.

I too am a bit confused: since both of you were victims here:

1. why did you let it be explained away that " Jim did it and he is no longer employed in the district" A statement made by John Richman at a BOE meeting. This statement basically said to the community, you don't need to know what happened, and we aren't telling you.

2. Why have you not pursued this any further. You seem to have enough information to have this investigated.

My final comment is that the community is a victim also. This happened on a district server and last time I looked, the community pays taxes which went to purchase that server and to pay the salaries of anyone who has access to it. So BOE members, as OUR representatives it is up to YOU to see that this issue is resolved to the communities satisfaction.

[rinx]

Lets throw this one into the mix as well...I believe if the emails cross state lines then it can also be persued by the feds.
Frank and Ralph do have the ammo necessary to bring this up to the DA's office.

[Go Plainedge!]

mythreekids said:

In working for "Corporate America" we were always told by our VP's that "if you don't want it on the cover of the NY Times- then DON'T write it in an e-mail" - I never write anything in an e-mail that possibly can be forwarded to another party or "rerouted" to another e-mail address or that may contain something that may be deemed "unprofessional". These things do happen in real life -in Corporate America on a daily basis and it is not considered "wire tapping" Yes- e-mails are foilable. I have personally sent numerous e-mails that don't get to the proper recipient but instead, in someone's elses mailbox. It happens unfortunately- not by deception.. I would hope this would be the case here. I would also hope that individuals would have the decency to leave Mrs. Presuto out of this.. Speak with Frank if you want to know something.

MyThree - however just because "oh it happens" does not justify the situation. Having set up a corporate network and researched the legalities of employee monitoring, I learned one very important thing. The employees must be made aware of any monitoring that is being done - phone call recordings, email viewing and Internet usage.

I believe that by FOIL-able it was meant Freedom of Information Law, not defeated: disappointingly unsuccessful; "disappointed expectations and thwarted ambitions"; "their foiled attempt to capture Calais"; "many frustrated poets end as pipe-smoking teachers"; "his best efforts were thwarted"

[mythreekids]

Go and Just Facts-- I understand what you are saying however- we know that "Jim" was in charge of the settings and he is no longer an employee. How can one prove that this act was criminal in nature and not just a mistake -he could have been a new employee or made a mistake..Believe me- I really want to understand and I appreciate your feedback. I would like to know what proof there is to show a crime was committed?
Also- if Frank and Ralph were so concerned- why are they not stepping up to the plate and launching this "investigation" that you so desire since it what may or may not be criminal affected them directly??? help me with this one..

[plainedgewatcher]

Mythreekids,

I agree with you. If Ralph and Frank feel they were victims, then why not go forward? That is concerning me now!!!

As for Jim, in order for this to happen, Jim would need to log into the server, he would have needed to go to Franks profile, there is a box that you need to check that basically says " forward all eamil mail to" then and this is the kicker, he would have had to have know the other BOE members PERSONAL email address and would have had to entered it in.

Just too many steps for an accident.....

[Say What Again]

Technically depending on the operating system and the email exchange server software in question (whatever they may be) then one wouldnt have to go into ANYONE's profile directly - one could simply instruct the server to perform any of (but not limited to) these possible scenarios of:

Any message FROM "X" email address, BCC to (list any number of recipients)...
Any message TO "A" email address, BCC to (list any number of recipients)...
and of course the ever popular -
Any email FROM "XYZ" email address/domain, Do not deliver, and delete from server.

Email servers are gateways and it is not necessary to invade a presonal profile to relay or foward or Blind Carbon Copy messages to and from any recipients...the trick is, that someone actually has to pyhsically configure the server to do so, so it is impossible for this to be any sort of accident.

"Jim" had to sit at the box and enable those settings, making his accountable. The only other relevant matters are:

Did anyone tell him to do so?
Did they coerce him under duress?
And if so, who?
and why?

If he acted alone, which would be highly doubtful unless someone can prove he and the relevant parties have some sort of bad history, then he is screwed. One the other hand, if he was ordered to do so then those are the people that need to be found, detained and made to sit in the dark room with an uncomfortable chair and a bright light in the face.

If it is the administration's/BOE's position that "he doesnt work here anynmore"and further addressing that to be "next topic please", well forgive me sounding a little "X-Files-ish", but that smells like a cover-up, and the fox investigating the hen house, and an independent inquiry needs to be administered.

There is a guilty party who has destroyed lives and is beling allowed to get a way with it - not only should THAT person be held accountable for their actions, but also the people aiding and abetting that individual by not bringing them forward.

Justice is already blind - its also growing more and more retarded with each passing day.

[plainedgewatcher]

Say what... that is the exact point...

It wasn't an accident...
it wasn't a bug...

SOMEONE WENT IN AND DID IT.......!